Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

@MattP @Webbo

 

Maybe I shouldn't have added that Mail cartoon. It does smack of "whataboutery" and I should have known that you'd seize on that bit and ignore the rest.

 

I'd actually be more interested in your response to the other points:

- Which precise bits of the mural are anti-semitic? How?

- What is your view of the fact that the Jewish Chronicle clearly quoted the artist selectively to push its slanted angle (see Wikipedia quote)? 

- Would you post selective, slanted quotes from the Islamic Chronicle attacking the Tories in the same way?

 

p.s. I'm astonished that you cannot remember the Mail cartoon, Matt. Caused a big furore right across the media/Web.

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Even Corbyn admits the mural is antisemitic, his excuse is he didn’t notice when he supported it. 

Exactly. Why would you? There is no obvious antisemitic imagery on the mural.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Is he saying that media that don't agree with him will be closed or is he saying watch out press barons change is coming? 

And does he explicitly say he wants to open up the free press?

I never said he was going to close them, I said he threatened them.

[Webbo]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

@MattP @Webbo

 

Maybe I shouldn't have added that Mail cartoon. It does smack of "whataboutery" and I should have known that you'd seize on that bit and ignore the rest.

 

I'd actually be more interested in your response to the other points:

- Which precise bits of the mural are anti-semitic? How?

- What is your view of the fact that the Jewish Chronicle clearly quoted the artist selectively to push its slanted angle (see Wikipedia quote)? 

- Would you post selective, slanted quotes from the Islamic Chronicle attacking the Tories in the same way?

 

p.s. I'm astonished that you cannot remember the Mail cartoon, Matt. Caused a big furore right across the media/Web.

As Strokes said Corbyn has now admitted it was anti semitic.

 

Some people on here say that I won't hear a word against the tories no matter what and are always making excuses for them. Clearly you're a bit the same.

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

@MattP @Webbo

 

Maybe I shouldn't have added that Mail cartoon. It does smack of "whataboutery" and I should have known that you'd seize on that bit and ignore the rest.

 

I'd actually be more interested in your response to the other points:

- Which precise bits of the mural are anti-semitic? How?

- What is your view of the fact that the Jewish Chronicle clearly quoted the artist selectively to push its slanted angle (see Wikipedia quote)? 

- Would you post selective, slanted quotes from the Islamic Chronicle attacking the Tories in the same way?

 

p.s. I'm astonished that you cannot remember the Mail cartoon, Matt. Caused a big furore right across the media/Web.

What was the date? Possibly I was out the country.

 

I think the noses are the main giveaway to it - I also have no problem with the Jewish chronicle selecting the part of the quote where the artist admits to upsetting Jews.

 

Corbyn has acknowledged this is anti-semetic himself so I've no idea why his supporters are still trying to claim it isn't? Are they really that desperate to get rid of the Tories they'll stoop to defend this now. What the Labour moderates must think of it I have no idea anymore.

 

But the whole debate shouldn't be about the mural - it should be about the consistent antisemitism now in the Labour party. It's pretty tragic.

 

Anyway he's apologised and that's it, roll on the next piece of antisemitism next week.

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Dianne Abbot called for another referendum a few months ago and wasn't sacked. Owen Smith was sacked (not that I care) to distract from Corbyn's antisemitic blunder.

 

Abbott wrote a private letter to a constituent basically justifying a parliamentary approach but saying that she would "argue for the right of the electorate to vote on any final deal that is agreed".

When this private correspondence was published, she clarified that the party position was to oppose a second referendum (though that might change in future). That's a bit different to Smith writing a public article opposing the party line.

 

Maybe she does argue for a second referendum behind closed doors? I'm sure some Labour ministers do - and that would have been a reasonable thing for Smith to have done.

You cannot seriously believe that May would accept one of her ministers publicly calling for a referendum? They'd have been either severely reprimanded or sacked, surely?

 

Corbyn could have chosen just to reprimand Smith, but I can understand the sacking. It's a vital, sensitive issue and he was publicly opposing party policy - while holding a sensitive, relevant post (N. Ireland spokesman).

 

You cannot seriously believe that Corbyn could be stupid enough to think that sacking a shadow minister would distract from the antisemitism furore?

The antisemitism furore would always get more publicity - not least as it plays into a mud-slinging strategy that anti-Labour media want to run (why else has this suddenly been dredged up after 6 years?).

How many people, other than politicians, care who is Labour's shadow minister on Northern Ireland?

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

As I touched on with Matt I'm absolutely with you on this - anti-Semitism shouldn't be tolerated and should be challenged wherever it arises. However (and this could well be whataboutery, yes) I am pointing out that no particular end of the political spectrum can really pass judgement on the others on this issue at this time without looking a bit hypocritical.

 

It should totally be highlighted, but as a problem across the board IMO. Again, this could be considered a deflection, but I think it broadly accurate.

I don't disagree that it is a problem across all political divides as it is a societal issue not wedded to any particular politics. However, the difference is that the Labour Party is the official opposition and one days hopes to lead the country with Corbyn at the helm. There should currently be a huge scrutiny upon him. Go back 10 years, this would be a sackable offence with calls across the board for him to stand down. It's one thing to have embarrassing fringe elements supporting a party, but this is no longer fringe.

 

I genuinely don't know where you go from here as a political party. Genuinely, in a civilised country, Corbyn should have no place at the top of politics. 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You cannot seriously believe that Corbyn could be stupid enough to think that sacking a shadow minister would distract from the antisemitism furore?

The antisemitism furore would always get more publicity - not least as it plays into a mud-slinging strategy that anti-Labour media want to run (why else has this suddenly been dredged up after 6 years?).

How many people, other than politicians, care who is Labour's shadow minister on Northern Ireland?

You're not seriously asking me that?   

[breadandcheese]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

@MattP @Webbo

 

Maybe I shouldn't have added that Mail cartoon. It does smack of "whataboutery" and I should have known that you'd seize on that bit and ignore the rest.

 

I'd actually be more interested in your response to the other points:

- Which precise bits of the mural are anti-semitic? How?

- What is your view of the fact that the Jewish Chronicle clearly quoted the artist selectively to push its slanted angle (see Wikipedia quote)? 

- Would you post selective, slanted quotes from the Islamic Chronicle attacking the Tories in the same way?

 

p.s. I'm astonished that you cannot remember the Mail cartoon, Matt. Caused a big furore right across the media/Web.

 

It is an anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the world through international finance. It is the same sh*t put out by the Nazis. It was imagery seized upon by Communists last century to foster hatred of capitalism and this projection of the sinister Jew. 

 

There's no pushing of any untruth by the Jewish Chronicle. 

 

Honestly, I'm amazed that you're actually defending this shit.

[Sharpe's Fox]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I think the noses are the main giveaway to it 

exactly what I’m on about lads. Caricatures and untruths picked up by the right to argue that anti capitalism is antisemitic.

 

12 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 

It is an anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the world through international finance. 

and another

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I never said he was going to close them, I said he threatened them.

You do talk rubbish webbo. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

You do talk rubbish webbo. 

He mentions the papers who reported the Czech spy thing and then made allegations and threats to those papers. The implication is clear.

 

Anyway I'm not going to let this distract from the main story today.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

What was the date? Possibly I was out the country.

 

I think the noses are the main giveaway to it - I also have no problem with the Jewish chronicle selecting the part of the quote where the artist admits to upsetting Jews.

 

Corbyn has acknowledged this is anti-semetic himself so I've no idea why his supporters are still trying to claim it isn't? Are they really that desperate to get rid of the Tories they'll stoop to defend this now. What the Labour moderates must think of it I have no idea anymore.

 

But the whole debate shouldn't be about the mural - it should be about the consistent antisemitism now in the Labour party. It's pretty tragic.

 

Anyway he's apologised and that's it, roll on the next piece of antisemitism next week.

I think the idea that labour is anti semetic is rubbish.

I think this particular story is likely stupidity on corbyn's part. 

Most of what gets labeled this way is simply because the left tends to support Palestinians and argue against illegal settlements etc. 

It's boring nonsense imo.

 

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, Webbo said:

As Strokes said Corbyn has now admitted it was anti semitic.

 

Some people on here say that I won't hear a word against the tories no matter what and are always making excuses for them. Clearly you're a bit the same.

 

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

What was the date? Possibly I was out the country.

 

I think the noses are the main giveaway to it - I also have no problem with the Jewish chronicle selecting the part of the quote where the artist admits to upsetting Jews.

 

Corbyn has acknowledged this is anti-semetic himself so I've no idea why his supporters are still trying to claim it isn't? Are they really that desperate to get rid of the Tories they'll stoop to defend this now. What the Labour moderates must think of it I have no idea anymore.

 

But the whole debate shouldn't be about the mural - it should be about the consistent antisemitism now in the Labour party. It's pretty tragic.

 

Anyway he's apologised and that's it, roll on the next piece of antisemitism next week.

 

 

So, having just denounced Corbyn as a "liar" and an "anti-semite", you're now solemnly accepting his word for everything - particularly his definition of anti-semitism? 

I'd assume that he now realises that he was a bit silly to make a throwaway comment on Facebook 6 years ago, and knows that this will just drag on as a media shitstorm unless he apologises (whether or not he now thinks the image is antisemitic). Given previous issues over "Labour antisemitism" (including some uncomfortable elements of truth, as well as a lot of mud slung by opponents) he'll want to say whatever it takes to get media debate back onto public services and the economy.

 

Humour me.....

- How many of the 6 blokes in the mural look Jewish to you? (I'd struggle to see more than 2-3 as looking Jewish)

- Given that the mural is clearly attacking big capital (monopoly board etc.), how can the purpose be antisemitic if several of the people attacked are not Jewish?

- Is it now impossible to caricature anyone as looking Jewish - or having any other racial origin? No more cartoons of Kissinger - or Abbott? I thought it was us lefties who were slated for "political correctness gorn mad"? 

 

As for being "a bit the same" as you, Webbo..... I've never been more insulted in my life! 

For the record, in my original post I accepted that Labour does have an issue with anti-Israel sentiment spilling over into antisemitism sometimes (though this is exaggerated by opponents as a smear tactic). I also said that Corbyn was a bit silly to have made his throwaway comment on Facebook - though it should be remembered that this was 6 years ago, long before he was leader, and has just been dredged up by people with a hostile political agenda. I'm no Corbyn fan (ironically, I voted for Owen Smith when he challenged Corbyn for the leadership) but I imagine his comment came from instinctively wanting to be "right-on" and "pro-Free Speech". I doubt he looked closely at the image - and if he did, I could well imagine him not seeing it as antisemitic. I doubt that I'd have seen it as antisemitic without this furore....though a couple of the figures give a slight queasy feeling, as I said. I genuinely don't know that there's any antisemitic element to it at all.

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

 

 

Humour me.....

- How many of the 6 blokes in the mural look Jewish to you? (I'd struggle to see more than 2-3 as looking Jewish)

- Given that the mural is clearly attacking big capital (monopoly board etc.), how can the purpose be antisemitic if several of the people attacked are not Jewish?

- Is it now impossible to caricature anyone as looking Jewish - or having any other racial origin? No more cartoons of Kissinger - or Abbott? I thought it was us lefties who were slated for "political correctness gorn mad"? 

 

 

 

What percentage of the population is Jewish? Less than half or a third I'm sure.

 

Honestly Alf, I don't know how you can make excuses for him. The artist said he did it to upset the jews, Corbyn's admitted it's anti semitic, what is there to argue?

[Nick]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

So, having just denounced Corbyn as a "liar" and an "anti-semite", you're now solemnly accepting his word for everything - particularly his definition of anti-semitism? 

I'd assume that he now realises that he was a bit silly to make a throwaway comment on Facebook 6 years ago, and knows that this will just drag on as a media shitstorm unless he apologises (whether or not he now thinks the image is antisemitic). Given previous issues over "Labour antisemitism" (including some uncomfortable elements of truth, as well as a lot of mud slung by opponents) he'll want to say whatever it takes to get media debate back onto public services and the economy.

 

Humour me.....

- How many of the 6 blokes in the mural look Jewish to you? (I'd struggle to see more than 2-3 as looking Jewish)

- Given that the mural is clearly attacking big capital (monopoly board etc.), how can the purpose be antisemitic if several of the people attacked are not Jewish?

- Is it now impossible to caricature anyone as looking Jewish - or having any other racial origin? No more cartoons of Kissinger - or Abbott? I thought it was us lefties who were slated for "political correctness gorn mad"? 

 

As for being "a bit the same" as you, Webbo..... I've never been more insulted in my life! 

For the record, in my original post I accepted that Labour does have an issue with anti-Israel sentiment spilling over into antisemitism sometimes (though this is exaggerated by opponents as a smear tactic). I also said that Corbyn was a bit silly to have made his throwaway comment on Facebook - though it should be remembered that this was 6 years ago, long before he was leader, and has just been dredged up by people with a hostile political agenda. I'm no Corbyn fan (ironically, I voted for Owen Smith when he challenged Corbyn for the leadership) but I imagine his comment came from instinctively wanting to be "right-on" and "pro-Free Speech". I doubt he looked closely at the image - and if he did, I could well imagine him not seeing it as antisemitic. I doubt that I'd have seen it as antisemitic without this furore....though a couple of the figures give a slight queasy feeling, as I said. I genuinely don't know that there's any antisemitic element to it at all.

 

 

Amen.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

Wikipedia has a fuller version of the artist's reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mear_One#Brick_Lane_mural

"In response, Mear One denied the mural was racist, and was quoted in The Independent as saying that the mural is about 'class and privilege', and pointed out that the figures depicted include both 'Jewish and white Anglos'. However, he was also quoted in the Jewish Chronicle as saying, 'Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are' (in reference to the Warburg family)".

 

So, the Jewish Chronicle does indeed seem to have quoted selectively to support its POV. I do wonder whether certain posters would so blindly believe a report hostile to the Tories in "The Islamic Chronicle"?

 

That's not to deny that Corbyn was silly to make his "right-on" Facebook comment back in 2012 - though there's obviously a reason as to why it's being dredged up 6 years later. I hear the grinding of axes and see the slinging of mud.

Nor is it to deny that Labour has a particular issue over pro-Palestinian sentiment spilling over into anti-Israel sentiment, then sometimes anti-semitism. That particular issue might be one to which Labour is prone, but racism exists in all parties. Corbyn is right to apologise - as the Tories were right to suspend their MP recently for her "niggers in the woodpile" comment. While freedom of speech and the freedom to offend are important, some caution is required.

 

But is that mural explicitly anti-semitic? I see a group of bankers/businessmen depicted to look unappealing. But which of them are clearly Jewish? Maybe I'm naive, but I suspect different people will see different things.

For me, the bloke on the left definitely looks a bit Fagin/Abraham, the second and fifth blokes look to "white Anglos", the third bloke has a hooked (potentially Jewish?) nose, the fourth bloke has a darker skin but looks more Indian, the bloke on the right has a big nose, might well be Jewish but not 100% clear.....

 

 

 

Which are the bits of this image that you find anti-semitic, as opposed to anti-capitalist (some of the capitalists maybe being Jewish, others not)?

 

Also, is it now never permissible to produce a negative depiction of someone who happens to be Jewish?

 

Some elements of this make me a bit queasy, but the central purpose of the art is clearly to attack big capital (the monopoly board is a fairly big clue!), not to attack Jews.

It's not on a par with the Mail cartoon at the height of the refugee crisis a couple of years back, depicting stereotypical migrants arriving with rats. Did Matt & co express the same ire at the Mail for its much, much clearer racism (attacking identity as "rats", not actions as "filthy capitalists", some Jewish, some not)?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-nazi-refugee-rat-cartoon_us_564b526ee4b06037734ae115

 

 

 

You know it’s been dragged up by a Labour MP don’t you?

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 

It is an anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the world through international finance. It is the same sh*t put out by the Nazis. It was imagery seized upon by Communists last century to foster hatred of capitalism and this projection of the sinister Jew. 

 

There's no pushing of any untruth by the Jewish Chronicle. 

 

Honestly, I'm amazed that you're actually defending this shit.

 

So, if the artist intended to be antisemitic, why did he depict several of the "filthy capitalists" as looking non-Jewish but unpleasant?

 

As for "untruth", remember the phrase "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"?

 

The Jewish Chronicle chose to selectively quote the bit where the artist said that some Jewish people had been offended (not a crime in itself, incidentally). It ignored the bits where the artist denied any racist intent, said that the work was about "class and privilege" and pointed out that it featured some people who were Jewish and others who were "White Anglos"......it printed part of the truth, not the whole truth, making it an untruth overall.

 

Similarly, imagine that you commented: "Kasper Schmeichel has been a great servant to LCFC. He's won us countless points with his saves, seems to be an inspirational figure to the squad, even his distribution is brilliant at times - but he was a complete tosser on that cross against Chelsea - should've stayed on his line". Would it not be an untruth if I selectively quoted you as saying just that Kasper is "a complete tosser"? 

[Carl the Llama]

The mural literally contains the line "the new world order is the enemy of humanity" and an image of the eye of providence which tends to be associated with freemasons or the illuminati.  None of those things directly imply specifically Jewish conspirators so I think some of the flabbergasted virtue signallers on here need to do a bit of research on their conspiracy nut terminology because there's enough material out there for the artist to draw from had that been the world view he buys into and wanted to recreate... but he didn't.  PC gone flippin mental.

Edited 24 March 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Webbo]

If Corbyn stamped on the head of a puppy on live TV some of you would say he was promoting animal welfare. 

 

Just remember this when you're telling me I've got entrenched views.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Exactly. Why would you? There is no obvious antisemitic imagery on the mural.

But why does he not just say, I don’t believe the mural to be antisemitic and challenge it. He now says it is antisemitic and he missed it.

Is it or not?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The mural literally contains the line "the new world order is the enemy of humanity" and an image of the eye of providence which tends to be associated with freemasons or the illuminati.  None of those things directly imply specifically Jewish conspirators so I think some of the flabbergasted virtue signallers on here need to do a bit of research on their conspiracy nut terminology because there's enough material out there for the artist to draw from had that been the world view he buys into and wanted to recreate... but he didn't.  PC gone flippin mental.

It's funny how Matt and webbo are nowhere to be seen when the homeless figures come out but suddenly can't drag themselves away if there's even a slight suggestion of Corbyn being a wrong 'un.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

It's funny how Matt and webbo are nowhere to be seen when the homeless figures come out but suddenly can't drag themselves away if there's even a slight suggestion of Corbyn being a wrong 'un.

Well now's your chance to show your superiority. Tell us what you think about Corbyn's antisemitism?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

 

 

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

But why does he not just say, I don’t believe the mural to be antisemitic and challenge it. He now says it is antisemitic and he missed it.

Is it or not?

Probably becuase the nuanced discussion being had on here is alien to public political discourse atm

 

Easier for him from a PR perspective to just make an apology

 

I think politicians and celebrities casually post/like/retweet all kinds of crap on social media without giving it too much thought

 

Jk Rowling recently got burned aswell

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

But why does he not just say, I don’t believe the mural to be antisemitic and challenge it. He now says it is antisemitic and he missed it.

Is it or not?

Be in no doubt that the mural is antisemitic as the artist intended, but it isn’t obviously antisemitic at first glance due to the lack of Jewish iconography. It can only be realised it’s antisemitic after research and discussion into the real life figures it presents

Edited 24 March 2018 by Sharpe's Fox